The purpose of this work is not, directly, to add another English verdict to those which have already been uttered among us respecting the character and merits (or demerits, as some would be ready to suggest) of Schleiermacher; but rather to furnish a small contribution, at least, towards the means by which the English Theologian may be enabled to form an independent judgment with regard to the matter. Truly it is but a small contribution which we here present; yet few, we think, will venture to deny that our selection is about the best that could be made by way of a beginning.1 If we had wished to exhibit the rhetorical and poetic element of Schleiermacher’s genius, or to illustrate the genetic developement of his system, we should certainly have commenced with his “Discourses on Religion.” In so doing, however, we should have fallen into the old blunder of showing but a brick or two as a specimen of the entire edifice; or at all events, of inviting men to judge of the size and splendour of the temple from a sight of its mere approaches. Most readers, of the class for whom this book is intended, will, we think, prefer a bird’s-eye view of the plan and frame-work of the whole structure. And this is what we have sought to furnish here.
In so far as an introduction was necessary, it has been thought that this want would be best supplied in a translation of the “Reminiscences of Schleiermacher,” which were published in the “Studien und Kritiken,” very soon after his death, by his friend and disciple, Dr. Lücke. To the warm feeling and lively interest embodied in them by reason of the circumstances under which they were composed, they unite a sober judgment respecting the theological position, merits, and influence of Schleiermacher,—a judgment which the Translator cannot help regarding as correct in the main, though his own stand-point as an English Congregationalist would prevent him from accepting all the views of the German Presbyterian Professor. Most firmly does he believe, most heartily does he rejoice in, the testimony of Dr. Lücke, that Schleiermacher had no intention of founding a school, in the ordinary sense of that term. It is the misfortune of the world, and pre-eminently the misfortune of the Church, that when God sends a great man upon the earth, he is too often forthwith regarded by the majority of those who have, in some sort, a receptivity for his communications, not as a force, to stimulate all powers of life in man, both human and Divine, to fresh activity and incessant progress, but rather as a kind of incarnate law or final norm, to mark for them, everlastingly, (so far as this world is concerned), the limits of the true and the attainable. Yet it can hardly be said that this has been the case with regard to Schleiermacher, at least in his own country. The worthiest and most reverent of his disciples whom it has been the happiness of the writer to know, are men who, so to speak, have got beyond Schleiermacher; but men who, at the same time, are ever free to confess that, under the blessing of the Only Wise, it was Schleiermacher himself who helped them to do so. It may be quite true, as one of our reviews, (a Hercules for strength from its very cradle), has lately affirmed, in an article, the ability of which it would be simply absurd to question, and almost superfluous to praise,—that “to revive his (Schleiermacher’s) creed at this time of day, in any considerable school of Germany, would be as easy as to restore the Continental system;” albeit the writer has evidently allowed himself to state the case quite strongly enough, as men are wont to do when writing in earnest. According to our thinking, however, there is one thing which would be less easy still; and that is, to annihilate the influence which Schleiermacher has exerted, and is yet exerting, upon the character, the contents, and the developement of theology in Germany, and the consequent necessity for a certain degree of acquaintance with his system, on the part of every theologian who desires both historically and spiritually to understand the Christianity of the nineteenth century, in its various forms of manifestation.2
There are three principal objects to be kept in view in a translation of this kind: strict fidelity to the author’s meaning, so far as it is ascertained; a general adherence to his terminology; and a resistance, as effectual as may be, to the barbarizing influence which the practice of translation is apt to exert upon the style of the translator. The first and the last of these particulars are of the very essence of a translation, properly so called. The importance of the second of them will be seen at once by a reference to the fact that a great, original thinker, in any department of human science, rarely fails to introduce old and familiar terms into the midst of new associations and uses, as well as to frame new words for the expression of his own conceptions or classifications. All the three points just named have been regarded in the present instance; with what success the reader will determine. The Translator feels constrained to own, that in regard to the last of them his success has not always been proportioned to his wishes. Naturally inclined to the construction of long, intricate, and cumbrous periods, he has had to deal with materials calculated rather to aggravate this tendency than to correct it. A glance at Dr. Lücke’s article will suffice to show the truth of this assertion in so far as he is concerned; and the extremely terse, compressed, and elliptical style and structure adopted in the present work of Schleiermacher’s, being contrary to ‘the general and natural character of his style as exemplified in his other productions, contributes to augment the difficulty of a close and yet tolerably flowing translation into English,—a difficulty which, in German works of this class, is always sufficiently formidable. The Translator confidently believes, however, that those readers who are best qualified to judge, will be precisely the readiest to make all reasonable allowance for defects which could hardly be avoided; and if the simple commendation of a conscientious and not wholly unsuccessful effort to retain and convey the meaning of the original be accorded to him, he is content to leave all minor blemishes to that indulgent consideration which is seldom refused to a first appearance in the more settled and permanent world of literature.3
It was at one time the intention of the Translator to prefix to the work a brief account of the progress which has been made, in Germany, in the preliminary discipline called Theological Encyclopædia, since the second edition of Schleiermacher’s book appeared; especially by the Theologians of what is called, with sufficient propriety, the Middle School—who, without sacrificing any part of the real gain to Theology involved in the labours of Schleiermacher, have succeeded in giving to the Scriptural norm of Christian Faith and Life a position more in accordance, not only with its own just claims, but also with the real exigencies of the devout consciousness, than that which seems to have been assigned to it in his system. But upon further consideration, the Translator was led to think that this purpose might be more suitably carried out elsewhere; and conceiving that if the adage about a great book is worth anything at all, it must apply with tenfold emphasis in the case of a large introduction to a small one, he was withheld from extending the present Preface, by the salutary fear that, if he did so, the reader might possibly hold himself excused from looking into it at all.
For the very extensive use which has been made of capitals and italics in the larger part of this volume, the Translator is exclusively responsible. His object has been to assist the reader in what Jean Paul calls the summary apprehension of the successive paragraphs; a kind of aid which the increasing productivity of the press and the pen is likely to leave us small room for despising.
It only remains to be stated, that if the present work should meet with due encouragement, it may probably be followed by the appearance of translations from other writings of the same author.
LONDON, April 1850.
← Dedication · Contents · Tabular Sketch of the Life of Schleiermacher →
Footnotes
-
It must not be forgotten, however, that a specimen of Schleiermacher’s criticism appeared in England as early as the year 1825, in a translation of his “Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke,”—attributed to that eminently learned prelate, the present Bishop of St. David’s, (then the Rev. Connop Thirlwall.) ↩
-
The “Tabular Sketch” which follows this Preface makes no pretension to absolute completeness; but it is believed to be correct as far as it goes, and may serve to elucidate some passages in the “Reminiscences” which might otherwise be obscure. ↩
-
Some of the more important subintelligenda which have been supplied, are enclosed within brackets,—especially those about which there might be a difference of opinion; but it would have been impossible,—and if possible, useless,—to have adopted this course universally. ↩